Why, when the Enterprise finally pulls out of dock, does it turn what are akin to headlights on? Surely it doesn't need light to see where it's going?

By Brian Lombard on Wednesday, December 02, 1998 - 12:53 pm:

I got this one off the Internet Movie data Base, and checked it out. I have seen it for myself, and it is quite funny. Pay close attention after Spock takes the thruster suit into V'Ger's inner chamber. He comes upon the Epsilon IX station which had been absorbed in the beginning of the picture. On Spock's line "But who or what are we dealing with?", you can plainly see the images of
Darth Vader and Miss Piggy on the Epsilon station.
It's hilarious!

By Meg Gillespie on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 08:28 pm:

I don't know what it is about this movie but I haven't been able to sit an watch the whole thing from beginning to end. I don't know if it had saomething called action in it I just might be able to. Don't get me wrong it's a good story, but it just seems way to long.

By Chris Franz on Saturday, December 12, 1998 - 02:08 am:

I would like to say a few things in defense of this movie. While this movie IS incredibly slow and depends way too much on special effects, it is still enjoyable and has some great moments.

The scene where Kirk goes aboard the Enterprise for the first time, and Scotty takes him all the way around before docking is great. Think about it, this is the first time in 10 years that any fan had scene the Enterprise in a new adventure and on the big screen. It is truly a great moment.

As for this movie being slow. Most people love 2001, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and I find those movies VERY slow and plodding. Just because a movie is slow doesn't necessarily make it bad. However, this being a Star Trek movie, it was hurt by the fact that it did seem to go nowhere for most of the movie. Luckily the rest of the movies realized their mistake, and the rest of the movies moved at a much better pace.

I thought that while the story had its problems, it was a really interesting story and worth telling. I thought that V'Ger's search for its Creator (or God) was dealt with much better than Sybok's search in Star Trek V.

By Johnny Veitch on Saturday, December 12, 1998 - 06:01 am:

Now for a long convoluted nit which is not exactly from this film but this is the best place to put it. In the first scene of Space Station Tango Sierra we can hear bckground voices referring to a "USS Columbia NCC-621". Presumably this Columbia was built after the SS Columbia (mentioned in The Cage), since there have never been two starships with the same name in service at the same time. My nit is this: According to the official chronology, the SS Columbia crashed in 2235. Also according to the official chronology, the Enterprise was constructed in 2245. But if the USS Columbia (NCC-621) were commissioned after the SS Columbia crashed, then the starship registries went from 621 to 1701 in less than ten years! Either starships aren`t numbered in order, or a lot of starships were built in a short time!

By Brian Henley on Saturday, December 12, 1998 - 01:30 pm:

Hmm. Good point, Johnny. But maybe they just add a didget to the numbers to designate a new class of ship. The runabouts in ST:TNG, and DS9 would be good examles of this. How many didgets do they have? 6 or 7, I think.

By Johnny Veitch on Sunday, December 13, 1998 - 07:51 am:

If you have the Star Trek Encyclopaedia you`ll see that the runabouts actually have only five digits, and are numbered quite well with the other ships.

By Charles Cabe (Ccabe) on Sunday, December 13, 1998 - 07:10 pm:

Can this whole movie be considered a nit, like STV. Also, the animated episode Bem occurs 9 stardates prior to this movie, which wouldn't allow enough time for an 18 month refit.

By Mf on Monday, December 14, 1998 - 09:50 am:

Well then, the whole thing must be considered a fantasy. Unlike the rest of Trek, which is of course real. "Canon," and all. Jeez.

By Ed Jefferson (Ejefferson) on Monday, December 14, 1998 - 02:57 pm:

Urm, well I think this movie is more canonical than the Animated Series, even if it is slighly less animated and has a worse storyline.

TAS is non-canon so Charles Cabe's point doesn't apply

By Cableface on Friday, December 18, 1998 - 05:04 pm:

Did anybody notice that Kirk goes out into space in one suit and then , when he catches Spock, is wearing a totally different suit?

Also, when Kirk leaves the ship, you can see the scaffolding that supports the set, and the roof of the building it's in.Not out of the corner of your eye, but right there!IT'S HUGE!!!!!HOW THE HECK COULD THEY MISS SOMETHING LIKE THAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD?

Note From Moderator Please no swearing.

By Todd M. Pence on Friday, December 18, 1998 - 08:54 pm:

Animated stardates are really screwy anyway. Take for example the stardate for "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" which would put that adventure earlier than any other Trek episode, including "Where No Man Has Gone Before!"

This movie is hurt not so much by the fact that it is slow and plodding as the fact that the plot is recycled several sources, most notably the TOS episode "The Changeling" and the Space:1999 episode "Voyager's Return." It's a shame that some of the earlier, more original and superior story ideas for this movie weren't used.

By N.L.A. on Monday, December 21, 1998 - 01:54 am:

Since I haven't been able to get my hands on the Classic Guide, I don't know if this nit is in it:
In one of the forward views of the Enterprise pulling out of dock, there is a strip to the side of the stardrive section which moves with the ship and is star-covered. It passes right over the drydock and blocks the parts of the dock out as the Enterprise moves (lights aren't turning off, nor does the framework of the dock routinely disappear). I'm thinking it was one of the cranes attached to the model to move it and it was filled in with stars. The fx people probably didn't compensate for the drydock model so the stars got filled in over it. Am I right?

By Ian Bland on Thursday, January 21, 1999 - 12:29 am:

Just to pick up on Chris Franz's point, I agree with him. I think the problem is, people tend to forget the context of this movie- as he says, this was the first Trek in ten years. Younger Trekkers can't begin to imagine what it was like in those dark days of the seventies when there were just the re-runs of the original series. Then there were rumours of a new series- and then, a whole, huge budget movie!
I still remember when I went to see ST-TMP at my local cinema, and back then it all seemed just right- the crew getting back together, the long, loving shots of the Enterprise... aaah, you young'uns should've been there...
This is making me feel very old. I'll put it this way, I'm old enough to remember being impressed by special effects!
Frankly, nobody much cared about the storyline, just so long as it was Star Trek!

By Ian Bland on Thursday, January 21, 1999 - 12:29 am:

Just to pick up on Chris Franz's point, I agree with him. I think the problem is, people tend to forget the context of this movie- as he says, this was the first Trek in ten years. Younger Trekkers can't begin to imagine what it was like in those dark days of the seventies when there were just the re-runs of the original series. Then there were rumours of a new series- and then, a whole, huge budget movie!
I still remember when I went to see ST-TMP at my local cinema, and back then it all seemed just right- the crew getting back together, the long, loving shots of the Enterprise... aaah, you young'uns should've been there...
This is making me feel very old. I'll put it this way, I'm old enough to remember being impressed by special effects!
Frankly, nobody much cared about the storyline, just so long as it was Star Trek!

By Cazbah on Thursday, January 21, 1999 - 07:31 am:

To add to Ian B's thoughts: I was in high school when this came out. I remember going to this with my girlfriend and telling her that it was OK if she wanted to go with me, but I wanted to WATCH the movie. That's how important it was to me.

By Ian Bland on Friday, February 05, 1999 - 09:51 pm:

In the Classic Guide, Phil picks a nit about how worried everyone is about using a warp drive in a solar system, and rightly points out that Starships do this all the time. I don't think this is a nit. What they're worried about is trying an uncalibrated, unbalanced, brand new warp drive in a solar system, near all those big gravity wells, comets, asteroids etc. It's a setup for the wormhole scene, which is sure enough generated by the unbalanced warp drive.

Unfortunately, I think someone at Paramount's read the Guides; in a DS9 I caught a bit of recently (I'm not sure which ep) some nefarious personage was speeding towards a star with the intention of blowing it up (dangerous place, the 24th century!). Kira ordered the Defiant to warp, Dax said "In a solar system?!" like this is really risky, and Kira said something to the effect that they'll have to risk it.

Which, it seems to me, means that nitpicking has now started generating nits!

By Cableface on Saturday, February 06, 1999 - 04:19 pm:

That ep was "By Inferno's Light" or "In Purgatories Shadow" i think it was the former.and it was the Bashir changeling.

By Ed Jefferson (Ejefferson) on Sunday, February 07, 1999 - 01:52 pm:

Ian- Going to warp in a solar system, and travelling at warp in a solar system are slightly different. If you leave, you pretty much just have to point ship in the right direction, and away from the planets. Inside, however, you have to be bloody careful you don't hit the planet you are aiming for.

By Rodnberry on Monday, February 08, 1999 - 05:40 am:

Hey, if anyone out there involved with DS9 or Voyager is looking for a new ep or novel idea, how about one about the dangers of prolonged use of warp drives in space after so many years? Something like after so many uses by so many ships (Federation and others) that timewarps or rents in time or black holes or whatever are the causes of it? Maybe it could take place during TOS, maybe even be another four novel crossover, but that'd be pushing it, I think. Of course, by the 24th century, it would be much safer to fly at warp but still, it could be a sort of thinly disguised reflection of the dangers with the ozone layer today, in a way, although that's probably already been done, too. Anyway, it's just a thought.

By Greg W on Wednesday, February 10, 1999 - 01:55 pm:

Rodnberry: Methinks that your parrellel development circuits are all crossed up. Why don't you check out TNG: 'Force of Nature'?

By SB on Tuesday, March 09, 1999 - 04:32 pm:

Why do so many people like this movie? As a film critic, I can tell you that this film SUCKS!!!

Sure, it was similar in look and style to TOS, but the costumes are nauseating (sp?), the effects shots are way too long (the trip through V'Ger being the worst offender), and the acting being deplorable. The only thing making this worse than "The Final Frontier" was the overall look of the film compared to the rest.

**

By Tim Brace on Tuesday, March 09, 1999 - 09:01 pm:

Again, the unique circumstances of Star Trek: The Motion Picture deserve to be repeated:

At the time, there had been no Star Trek for ten years, except the animated series, and no one had really expected that Star Trek would ever return. There were always rumors, but they were generally dashed.

For true Star Trek fans, it was like exile in the desert. And then the movie, with Robert Wise as director, and the original cast, and it was like a revelation. Most fans went to the movie many times, not because they necessarily loved it, but because it was Star Trek. During the first day showings, the movie audiences would go crazy when the characters appeared on screen, practically an ovation when William Shatner's face first appears in the window.

Many of us referred to the movie as "Where Nomad has Gone Before" or "Star Trek: The Slow-motion Picture", but it will always have a spot in our hearts, especially because of the beautiful way the Enterprise is depicted, and the return of our beloved characters.

And don't forget what that movie begot:
its enormous movie grosses caused Paramount to keep putting out Star Trek, including nine movies and three more television series, which are still going strong.

Truly a comeback without peer, which no one ever thought possible, though we prayed for it, and a tribute to Gene Roddenberry and the enormous fandom that never lost hope.

By Charles Cabe (Ccabe) on Tuesday, March 09, 1999 - 10:13 pm:

SB- Most of the problems you point out could apply to Titanic, as well. Just becase a movie has problems dosen't mean that people won't enjoy it.

By Hans Thielman on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - 02:13 pm:

"The Day the Enterprise Stood Still" could have been the title of this film.

However, despite its flaws, ST:TMP was well received by Trekkers. If it hadn't been, there would probably have been no "Next Generation," "Deep Space Nine," or "Voyager."

By SB on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - 04:02 pm:

Tuche, Chuck.

By Todd M. Pence on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - 08:21 pm:

It was a movie designed, first and foremost, for the big screen.

By SB on Thursday, March 11, 1999 - 02:59 pm:

Your point being...?

By Todd Pence on Thursday, March 11, 1999 - 03:59 pm:

That it sacrifices substance and story for impressive visuals. This is why it hasn't translated very well to videotape and doesn't bear repeat viewings even though it might have been a spectacular experience the first time you saw it in the theatre.

By SB on Friday, March 12, 1999 - 03:36 pm:

Get real, Todd. The visuals are, for the most part, just fine. My beef is that acting and plot were all but eliminated for them - which, in the real world, is NOT a good thing!

By mf on Monday, March 15, 1999 - 02:54 pm:

Don't forget, too, it was a product of its time. Space movies of the time were all going for the long, slow space-realism of 2001 (eg the silence - just the radio transmissions). And it WAS nice to see the crew again after so long. And they all looked good- Shatner and Doohan were never thinner. The costumes, too, were a product of their time - the space leisure suit. Ultra polyester. And a lot of the old series music was used; also a nice touch. I don't know what the criicism of the acting is, I thought they were all fine (except for that horrible horrible bald woman). Yes, the movie was short one plot and long by thirty minutes of SFX. I'm not defending it. I just edited down a version and watch it every so often.

By SB on Monday, March 22, 1999 - 03:33 pm:

I'd keep that under my hat if I were you, mf. You never know if someone from Paramount is reading this.

By Matthew Patterson on Monday, March 22, 1999 - 09:37 pm:

Hey, don't insult Persis Khambatta. She died last August and can't speak up for herself anymore.

By SB on Tuesday, March 23, 1999 - 03:06 pm:

Amen, Matthew.

By Dquinn (Dquinn) on Friday, March 26, 1999 - 06:29 pm:

I probably should delete that message, from mf, but I think he got a tounge bashing enough. But let me say that I have a really short temper, so please, dont make me do something I'll regret, like mailbomb you with my two T1 lines.

By BrianB on Thursday, April 08, 1999 - 04:13 am:

Just to throw my 2 cents in. It was okay. In Shatner's Movie Memories book, he described the SFX as "the fans were treated to great feasts...when maybe a small snack would've done..." (quote paraphrased).

By mf on Wednesday, April 14, 1999 - 05:27 pm:

To Matthew Patterson, SB, and most especially, Dquinn: I did not mean to state that Persis Khambatta was a horrible person. Only that her acting was horrible. Her death, sad as it is, does not change that. And if you want to start censoring the board based on people's opinions, why do I suspect you wore a tie at NBC sometime around 1968?

By Matthew Patterson (Mpatterson) on Wednesday, April 14, 1999 - 05:46 pm:

I seriously doubt that any one of us was at NBC in 1968, as I don't think any of us were old enough then! I, especially, was -17 years old! I didn't mean my remark to be a tounge-lashing, just sort of casual remark like I might make to a friend at achool. We areall friends here, aren't we?

By Mark Bowman on Friday, June 04, 1999 - 02:48 am:

Does anyone know if a scene was cut out of the
tapes or not? When the Enterprise goes through
V'gers geometric clouds (for lack of better words),
and when they switches to the view screen, you
can hear a distinct jump in the dramatic pipe organ
music. Strangly, it dosen't seem that there was any
extra scene at that point in the first place. Did the editors realize
that the music was going to be out of sync with
the onscreen action and descided to make an audio
jump cut?

By cableface on Saturday, June 05, 1999 - 05:48 pm:

The version i have of this film is supposed to include extra footage which may account for the jump in the music.Unfortunatly, i don't know what it is because A:It bores the arse off me so i can't sit and watch it to find out what's new. and B:Even if i could , i can't remember what it was like originally because it bored the arse off me then as well.So that was no help and there was little point in me posting this message.